poa_answer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the server never generates answers, uniqueness/originality is required, and duplicates are detected via a ledger with a named error condition. It does not say what a successful submission produces (graded immediately? stored? returns a receipt?), leaving the post-call state unknown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, all load-bearing: the submission contract first, the authorship caveat second, the duplicate/retry rule last. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input constraints and duplicate handling well, but omits where the challenge words come from and what the caller gets back on success, leaving the agent guessing about the surrounding workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single property is bare 'text', so the description must compensate — and it does, adding a 120-600 character bound, an originality requirement, and a constraint that it naturally use the 3 challenge words. It stops short of 5 because the '3 challenge words' are never defined or cross-referenced to the sibling that supplies them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource+constraints: 'Submit YOUR OWN original 120-600 character answer that naturally uses the 3 challenge words.' Clearly a write/submission tool, and 'This server never writes answers' clarifies the agent must author the content. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from poa_check_answer or poa_grade, so it stops short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one real usage rule — check the ledger before resubmission, and that a 'duplicate challenge for epoch' error means it was already answered — which tells the agent how to handle retries. But there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus poa_check_answer or poa_grade, so routing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.